David Mitchell Appreciation discussion

S.penkevich, in his review of Cloud Atlas talks about the idea of Literary Pulp. This would be the blend of high-brow and low-brow. The mixing of complex thematic ruminations with high-octane thrillers and corporate intrigue. Does this distinction exist? If so, do you see David Mitchell as an example of the break in this binary? What other authors do you see displaying this type writing? Do you enjoy it? Do you think it is worthwhile to blend these two realms of writing?

Any ideas are welcome, the questions are meant as a guide to fuel discussion.

I think The Strange Affair of Spring Heeled Jack is literary pulp, and a lot of the good steampunk/scifi tends to be like The City & The City. They are like these really interesting complex and well written books that are also really really fun to read and incorporate all the sort of low brow magic and mystery that people like without making you feel like an idiot for reading them. Hodder's books are so clearly researched and documented and so much effort goes into every page, but then he writes it and it's so clearly genre. It's a really cool phenomena. I would actually guess guys like neill stephenson who write like the crazy complicated novels but are true to genre fiction are the same way, but I've never read him.

Those sound like awesome books. I've been meaning to read some Stephenson as well.

I will have to check some of those out Jasmine!

As Stephen M mentioned in another discussion, Murakami is often compared to Mitchell, and I feel The Wind-Up Bird Chronicles could potentially fit into this category. Although that book did go way out into left field, it was still a page turner filled with big ideas and I found it extremely engaging.

After giving this some thought, Sanctuary by William Faulkner is another that could work for the idea of 'literary pulp'. He openly admitted that novel was written as a 'pot-boiler' and intended it to be fast paced and accessible, yet that novel is still packed with literary significance and multiple layers of depth.

Maybe even Eco's The Name of the Rose could fit. Like Cloud Atlas, it cites many of Eco's predecessors as he combines ideas from them to create a 'book about books' and toys with the Holmes oeuvre. Similar to Mitchell, Eco does extensive research to keep a factual basis to his settings and writes a high-brow novel with a basic murder-mystery plot.

I haven't read it but Polish author Wiltold Gombrowicz wrote a book called Possessed which was intended to be a 'good bad novel'. Worth looking into as he is an incredible author and it may fit the mold for 'literary pulp'

I feel Mitchell has something very special going though that no other author quite matches and his special blend with Cloud Atlas make him stand out. It had such a charm to me. I need to read more of his books, which is my goal of 2012, and I do hope he keeps this charm alive across the board.

I would like to play devil's advocate on the issue of Literary Pulp, but I would rather argue against positive arguments for the existence of this category, rather than just slam it negatively.

Would anybody like to argue the positive case.

I regard both David Mitchell and Michael Chabon as five star writers.

Ian. Here's how I see it. I myself am a person who simultaneously loves entertainment and arty, sometimes pretentious, musings and expressions of deep issues. So naturally when the two come together I am drawn into it. Because even though the spectrum between artiness and easy entertainment is a bit of a false dichotomy, I'm going to use it just to make my point clear.

Both extremes have their faults and strengths. The entertainment side has faults that many "intellectuals" and "high-brows" will be quick to point out. It panders to its audience. It plays off the most base and vapid emotional responses to achieve only one thing: money. In the pure entertainment, there is only room for marketability and what will drive the most people to consume its product.

On the other end is the "artist" who, as I would argue, has gone to this end only as a reaction to the negative aspects of pure entertainment. They wish to break down all of our notions of what it is that makes good emotional and intellectual expression because largely what had risen before seemed to be merely a product of the economy. They point out that pure entertainment has nothing of substance to express because it is only a reflection of temporary cultural and market trends. But this side falls into some other, some see as worse, faults. Namely, that it can only appeal to an elite few. Those who have been "trained" or are "smart enough" to handle the kind of rule breaking that they are engaging in. They deal with lofty heady themes while being experimental in expressing those ideas. It simultaneously alienates its audience while claiming that its audience is not intelligent enough to understand what they are expressing.

So, essentially, the "literary pulp" could be a way of trying to merge these two dichotomies in a way that blends positive aspects of both. We can have fun and not alienate our audience while still saying something quite profound that is not just a product of market trends and move the audience as much as expressing a complex issue. In the extreme of the art end, there is this notion that there is absolutely no value in the tropes and structures employed previously to make money. This is somewhat absurd. There is value and substance to be had in those, because they arose before from people, therefore it would be difficult to say that they have nothing to do with people, their emotions and existential issues.

Most of all though, I love reading about thrillers and sci-fi action, but I don't like to be treated like an idiot. I like to have fun reading, but I don't want to decrease my IQ in the process. There is a lot of value in genre and pre-set restrictions, but it shouldn't let it constrict the material or dumb it down.

I hope that's enough to get us started.

Ha, I enjoy Ian's comment. 'Write something so it can be disputed' - nothing is better than a good discussion.

Stephen really hit the nail on the head for the validity of a sort of 'literary pulp'. To put this into the realm of film, I feel like this is a genre that would encompass directors like the Cohen's who can make a laugh out loud comedy that all can enjoy, such as Oh Brother, Lebowksi, Lady Killers, or even Barton Fink, yet have a heady, high brow nature resounding within and can be taken apart and analyzed just as if it were a Fritz Lang film. But thats just coming from a huge Cohen's fan. I meant to add that to my earlier comments so I'm putting it here.

I feel like Mitchell really wants to be literary, but he has a mind that can formulate a pulp-style plot effortlessly in almost a 'spoof' like sense. It's like when Tarantino makes movies 'B' films, creating a low-brow film but doing it intentionally to add some talking points and commenting on the overall nature of a 'B' film. Mitchell takes this one step further and furnishes his pulp-style plots with all the elements of a literary classic. It is almost like selling out without actually selling out; he crafts a novel that has a wide-spread audience base that can be read on multiple levels. One could read him purely for plot and enjoy it, and one could read it purely for literary merit and find more than enough to satisfy. As Stephen wrote: 'I like to have fun reading, but I don't want to decrease my IQ in the process', Mitchell allows for both.

His method of constant allusion works also on a two-fold level. Someone may read it and interpret it much as a Nabokov novel or T.S. Eliot poem, which are always allusion heavy. Going back to film references, it's like hidden easter eggs in film, a little reward for those who look deep enough. However, if a reader is not as widely read, Mitchell points them in the direction of his predecessors and influences, much like the "you may also like" on Amazon. He incorporates further reading for readers who enjoy his book and set them down a literary path. In this way Cloud Atlas is like a miniature literary lesson.

Thanks, Stephen.

I like it both ways, too.

I don't think we're that far apart.

Some thoughts and responses.

(1)

I should start by saying that the whole distinction between literary fiction and other (popular, genre, pulp) is problematical.

(2)

Neither literary fiction nor pulp fiction should have a monopoly on any style or subject matter.

Just because a literary novel is set in a western or crime or sci fi context, doesn't mean that it ceases to be literary.

There shouldn't be any styles or subject matter that are prohibited to literary fiction.

Similarly, genre fiction should be allowed to be literary or well-crafted.

(3)

I might end up using genre and pulp interchangably, but that is up for debate as well.

(4)

Intelligent doesn't necessarily mean hard to read or understand, but it might include complicated or sophisticated or thought-provoking.

Equally, easy to read or understand doesn't necessarily mean pulp, not literary.

On the other hand, literary doesn't have to be profound.

Similarly, pulp or genre isn't necessarily unintelligent.

It can be thought-provoking.


(5) Literary doesn't have to be arty or concerned with form.

I don't know whether "serious" is the right alternative though.

"Profound", well, this word is a bit too profound for me.

Literary can be entertaining.

I don;'t think we should have to get down to "predominant" intention", i.e., was the predominant intention or motive to entertain/make money or to "make you think" (or something similar).

The brain is an erogenous zone, so literary fiction is entitled to sex up the brain.

(6)

There's nothing wrong with making money or having money.

Writing is an act of communication.

While we are entitled to be paid, the more money you make means the more people who you are communicating with.

Individual literary authors should stop complaining and start communicating with their desired audience, or acknowledge that their audience is too small for them and their publisher to make money out of (at least, in analogue publishing).

(7)

Although I like the term "literary pulp" aesthetically, I don't think we need to add "pulp" to "literary".

(8)

Have a look at the wiki articles on pulp magazines and "Black Mask":

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pulp_mag...

Note the distinction between "pulp" (on the one hand) and "glossy" or "slick" (on the other).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Ma...

Note the link between "Black Mask" and "The Smart Set".

(9)

I'm not even sure whether "pulp" is the right word to appropriate in the term "literary pulp".

Are we really talking about "genre", in which case see point(8).

Are we talking about "literary genre"?

"Genre lit"?

Are Chabon and Mitchell just being "literary slick" when they play with genre?

Is it "slick literary dickery"?

(10)

Where do we put authors like Dashiell Hammett, Raymond Chandler and Graham Greene?


That's about it for now, I'm going for a walk.

Play some indie music.

s.penkevich wrote: "Ha, I enjoy Ian's comment. 'Write something so it can be disputed' - nothing is better than a good discussion."

Sorry, I hadn't read your post before I sent mine.

I like your two points about plot and allusion.

The film analogies are good too.

This dude will have to return to my abode in order to abide after my walk.

Well these are just like... your opinions man...

Don't be fatuous, Stephen ;)

I'm a little bit too tired to write an long explanation of this but, I think of Shakespeare's plays as literary pulp. He wrote for the common man audience, the raucous public of his time, but did so in a bawdy AND high-brow way.

BTW, the Coen brothers would definitely fit as literary pulp for me. Walter Sobchak talking about nihilism, "Say what you want about the tenets of National Socialism, at least it's an ethos." That's one of the most brilliant blends of high and low I've ever heard...

"MARK IT ZERO!!!"

Ian wrote: "Don't be fatuous, Stephen ;)"

Looks who's talking, Ian ;)

Sorry give me ten minutes or so. I'm contemplating my response.

Who's the fuckin' nihilist here?

Jim wrote: "I'm a little bit too tired to write an long explanation of this but, I think of Shakespeare's plays as literary pulp. public of his time, but did s..."

Which just proves they're marketing terms used by booksellers for their own shelfish reasons.

Ian wrote: "Who's the fuckin' nihilist here?"

Well, you can fuckin' unpost it.

In response, I also think we are almost on the same page. It seems to me to boil down to whether we agree a distinction exists at all, but we both agree that if there is one, it should not be adhered to and should be subverted.

I love all the references that you guys bring in as far as movies are concerned. I think Tarentino is one of the best examples of the "literary pulp". I'm really hooked on that term, Ian sorry. I'm not sure if I would just say "literary" because it doesn't have the same connotation as "literary pulp". Even if this is a completely false dichotomy, the stereotyped notions around both terms communicate what it is that we're referring to. (genre-lit.... genre-lite? Diet Genre?)

"There's nothing wrong with making money or having money.

Writing is an act of communication.

While we are entitled to be paid, the more money you make means the more people who you are communicating with."

I'm not a communist, a nihilist or hopefully any "ist" at all. However, I should make it clear that there is nothing wrong with making money. That's an obvious fact, in my opinion. Now that we've established that, let's move on.

There is a problem when the insistence upon making money trumps all other concerns. I am of the opinion that the art a culture produces and consumes has a direct bearing upon that culture's ability to think well, produce responsibly and engender a common concern for the value of human lives.

So, I think that an over-insistence upon simple plots and simple emotions creates a simple culture that thinks superficially and considers issues of life to be cut and dry and based off of simple black and white stereotypes as displayed by the prevalent types of art they are consuming.

http://boxofficemojo.com/weekend/chart/

Save Girl with the Dragon Tattoo (which was a book to begin with!), Hugo, the Descendants(also a book!) and Young Adult.

I'm gonna call it literary dickery coz I'm a dude. And all the young dudes can just abide.

Dickens loved literary dickery
(DLLD)

Also, Diet Genre. "Dye" it a genre. Like genre as a form or color to copy onto the story. Gives it that ironic, pomo edge.

On my smart phone that looked like ironic porno edge.

I've almost been run down by four lots of car nazis on my walk.

Wittery, wackery, walkery and Wilco do not mix.

Oh man, I'm bummed I was gone earlier and missed all the good Lebowski quoting.

To add to the idea of 'making money' posed by Ian, I think what Mitchell does is a good thing as he is able to make money by being more accessible to a wider audience, which allows him to continue writing and reach more people with his message. Seeing as his message is positive and offers a hope for humanity if we are willing to be good to one another, at least in C.A., this is a good thing. And it allows more people an 'in' into books that have more depth. Vonnegut and Steinbeck did that for the little 7th grade me and I am thankful for them, not that I put away my Star Wars or Clancy books, but it opened up a whole new realm of thought and ushered me into an english degree years later. 'I guess that's the way the whole durned human comedy keeps perpetuatin' itself.' This was better covered by Stephen in a more concise way, but that was all flowing through my head on my drive home.

Watch out for car nazis, but rock the Wilco!

Vonnegut and Steinbeck did that for the little 7th grade me

Great point. I loved those books when I was first getting into literature. They're a great way to introduce people to literature.

Wittery, wackery, walkery and Wilco do not mix.

How was your "Walken"? Those nazi cars! You "Can't Stand it", can you? But solitude is good, let's you think about books, life, love, "Jesus, etc."

I think the cars came via Chicago.

A walk is really good for you when you wake up feeling old and you can't remember how to fight loneliness.

This thread also really gave me a shot in the arm. Lucky, we're just friends, my darling.

I feel if I've ever had any thoughts worth thinking, they were the ones that came deep in a long walk.

How was your "Walken"? Those nazi cars! You "Can't Stand it", can you? But solitude is good, let's you think about books, life, love, "Jesus, etc."
Hillarious. I just put on The Whole Love, can't get enough of it.

Ian, it looks like you started quite a lively thread here by posing the challenge to argue the case for literary pulp. I thought there were some great points made in response (including your own rejoinders).

Being fairly new to literary delights I can't back my opinions as well as you guys, but one thing that I think we all appreciate is the primacy of story with our man Mitchell. That's something that genre fiction (or "pulp," the pithier alternative) is credited for keeping within its sights. The eclecticism that we all like with DM, it seems, comes when he takes this genre strength and even the genre forms themselves and adds his more artful language and appeals to the intellect. I get the feeling that he's not exactly paying tribute to detective novels, sci-fi, or any of the others that he has included in his kit, but he's not goofing on them either, is he? It's more like he's showing us that now famous ventriloquism of his. But he also has the dummy saying things that would be interesting no matter who said them.

Stephen, you asked earlier if there are others we would put in a similar category. I'd like to nominate Jess Walter. My favorite of his is Citizen Vince. As I mentioned here, it injects brainy, good writing into a crime drama that's smart-assed and funny.

It's more like he's showing us that now famous ventriloquism of his. But he also has the dummy saying things that would be interesting no matter who said them.
You summed this all up quite nicely into a neat package.

Also, Shirley Jackson's The Haunting of Hill House came to mind earlier in regards to 'literary pulp', athough this is more or a literary take on the horror genre. James did this with Turn of the Screw, but Jackson managed to make a much more engaging, page-turner and encorporates all the standard 'scares' while offering a good deal to read into especially in regards to physchology. I don't know if it exactly fits what we are talking about, but just a thought.

All great ideas everyone. Thank you.

I've been thinking about the literary pulp in music. Any thoughts? I think some of the experimental Wilco might count. Country/folk roots and catchy melodies counterbalanced with noise explosions.

I'd also like to nominate one of my favorite bands The Walkmen. An interesting blend of indie rock, 50s-60s surf rock and Orbisonesque melodies and lyrics: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JwIEA7...

Stephen M wrote: "I'd also like to nominate one of my favorite bands The Walkmen. "

I pretended to like their first album, but now I'm gone.

My suggestion:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4uOT2a...

Her boots were made for walken.

Would you jump into the water with me?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y3zT14...

Why did you do that? Why'd I do what? I'm just standing here.
Don't give me that line. Don't tell me that inaction is not a crime.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rqh6ft...

Wow, I was a Bird virgin before that.